Flyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1015 posts, RR: 6 Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
Its about time someone took on Massport. This doesn't seem to be a problem with B6 at JFK...and they are a much bigger airport with more assets/targets.
Jjbiv From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
Why are the State Police and the TSA using an unlicensed frequency band for critical applications? I like the 9/11 reference. Sounds more like Massport greed to me! Perhaps BOS should be privatized?
Kanebear From United States of America, joined May 2002, 953 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
Massport doesn't have a leg to stand on. 2.4Ghz networks interoperate at countless facilities all over the world without interfering with each other. If anything, Massport could force AA and CO to limit the coverage areas of their networks which can be easily done, however a simple RF study will very quickly disprove any interference allegations. I'm VERY surprised the FCC hasn't waded in yet.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3805 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1168 times:
You won't find me apologizing for Massport. I think they are the biggest bunch of bullies out there. But this AA argument against Massport sounds so familiar. You know how airlines always forbade people from using cell phones because of the threat of 'interference to avionics' (yeah...right) when they were really just trying to protect the AirPhone franchise? Now it sounds like the shoe is on the other foot. The argument that Massport is using is similar to the argument the airlines always used to keep people from using cell phones on board.
Anyway, this is "Massport being Massport" in the same way that "Manny is being Manny" on our dearly-departed Red Sox. With legions of lawyers, they aren't above strong-arm tactics to protect their flanks. Of course, the linkage is VERY easy to make between monies collected through Wi-Fi and subsequent booze cruises, big pay packages, and floozies under every desk for their own flock.
Airlines may figure that focusing on big cities like Boston rather than secondary cities like MHT and PVD is the way back to financial health. But as sure as the sun rises and sets, Massport will take advantage of airlines in the same way that spiders take advantage of flies caught in a web. True enough that Massport's objective is to make money. That's not in dispute. BUT, Massport's appetite for spending--and spending lavishly and foolishly--means they have to use a big Hoover to pull in enough money to pay for all those cruises and floozies and laughably inflated pay packages. THAT is why they don't want any other wi-fi signals floating around.
Flyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1015 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 3): You know how airlines always forbade people from using cell phones because of the threat of 'interference to avionics' (yeah...right) when they were really just trying to protect the AirPhone franchise? Now it sounds like the shoe is on the other foot. The argument that Massport is using is similar to the argument the airlines always used to keep people from using cell phones on board.
The thing is that the cell phone rule is an FAA one, not an airline per say. I don't disagree that the airline's haven't tried to stop cell phone usage, but the cell phone companies want assurances that someone talking at FL30000 isn't tying up multiple cell towers since they are overhead and have line of sight with every single tower.
Second, until recently, there was no proof that cell phones wouldn't interput transmissions between an aircraft and VOR equipment (Very-High Frequency Omni Directional Range.) For those of you unfamiliar with VOR, it basically creates a highway in the skies for aircraft to follow.
Ultimately, in the case of Wifi, Massport is trying to strong arm any competition for their own product, one that came after the airline's own, and manipulating the laws for their benefit.
TUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
Massport can't stop people from connection to the net via their cellphones (using bluetooth) to the laptop or via an EDGE or EVDO PC card. Seems like people up at Massport have too much time on their hands, why not fire them? I'm sure an 18 year old could do a better job at managing the place.
BTW has the "Comcast Wall" around Logan been built yet?
Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1015 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
